Rangers Face Their Fate

As dawn breaks over Edinburgh this morning, The Rangers Football Club plc, will see its last sunrise in a world where it can influence its own fate. By this evening, the future of the famous football club shall lie in the hands of three tribunal judges. If this case finally concludes today (as I believe, and hope, it will), the clock will start ticking down to the decision that will see Rangers released victorious to thrive again or suffocated by an unpayable debt.

The waiting time for the outcome shall depend upon how much work the judges have prepared in advance of the final days’ summations. If they have written up their findings of fact in advance of this week, a decision might come within a matter of a few weeks. (Following tribunal process, both sides have presented their versions of the facts of the case in previous sessions). Much more likely, given the volume of evidence presented, is that Rangers’ fate will not be known until late March or early April. In fact, there is no deadline on when a result must be published. A few exceptional decisions have taken over a year to be released.

As the Scottish media and Rangers’ own supporters slowly wake up to the danger, it is worth revisiting the efforts expended to deflect and deny that this story was even true. Following fast on the heels of an April 2010 News of The World (RIP) story that HMRC were planning an attack on “Scottish football clubs”, Darrell King of The Herald and Evening Times published details (delayed to avoid possibly derailing league victory) that Rangers were the specific club being targeted. Despite getting the basic facts correct, King’s newspapers were forced into humiliating retractions. With his wings clipped, he avoiding discussing the subject until very recently.

Rangers’ Chairman at the time, Alastair Johnston, cunningly misled fans and shareholders in media releases and at Rangers’ AGM in 2010. While his statements were not inaccurate in the strictest sense, they were designed to give the impression that the tax issue was a matter for the club’s parent company and that “‘I do not think it should be a material concern for us“.

The subject was then dropped. For Scotland’s famously craven and incompetent sports hacks, it was business as usual. They reprinted PR-firm lies in return for access to transfer trivia. Any attempt to discuss the tax case in public fora was met with either derision or “may I remind you that we are a live broadcast“. If there is a legal barrier to commentary, it seems to apply only in Govan- as the media’s frequent flaying of Hearts’ owner continues to demonstrate. The most important story in the history of Scottish football was ignored and left to die. For the general public, the attitude to the tax case could be summed up as: “If there was any truth in this story, the newspapers would be all over it“.

The inspiration to start this blog was my incredulity at the degree to which the Scottish media had been co-opted. Sitting quietly in possession of the truth about what was happening, I could not believe that this story had not found a single champion inside the reporting establishment. At least fifty people, in seven or eight organisations, knew what I knew. In a city where the faintest whiff of a story involving either Rangers or Celtic is relayed like a shock-wave, that no one was talking seemed remarkable. Then I realised why- no one trusted the hacks.

The people with access to the facts of this story are no mugs. We all understood the tight-knit corrupt ‘clubbyness’ of those within the sports media-Rangers axis. Promises of confidentiality would be breached for a glass of burgundy and a plate of succulent lamb. Gossip traded over too many whiskies could ruin your career. No one in their right mind would talk to an establishment reporter for fear of being burned in return for an “exclusive” on which foreign superstar was being tracked by the Ibrox club. (Darrell King was fed his story in April 2010 by Rangers’ director Dave King who was trying to launch his own bid to buy the club, coincidentally enough, for £18m for the debt + £1 for the shares. So it hardly counts as socking a blow against ‘The Man’).

When any facet of society is able to conduct its business beyond public questioning corruption follows. The sloth of the sporting wing of the journalism profession in Scotland has played a large role in bringing our national game to this point. In the next 12 months, it is more likely than not that two of the three largest clubs in the country will file for insolvency.

As a Celtic supporter, I fall prey to the occasional bout of Schadenfreude over Rangers’ misfortunes. It is the very essence of the rivalry between supporters of these clubs: no quarter asked, none given. One of the best aspects of this blog is the way in which articulate and reasonable fans from both sides (and even a few others) can have an online discussion that does not degenerate into sectarian bile hurling. However, my contempt for what passes for a sports journalist in Scotland today has grown to the point where Rangers are almost a side-issue. Ill-informed, arrogant, and lazy, they have failed to do their jobs. I doubt that any of them dreamt of copying-and-pasting transparent lies for corporate interests when they made their career choice. However, they sold their souls for an easy life. For them, no worrying about cultivating contacts or having to have an original thought. I wonder how they face the mirror in the morning.

We will find out Rangers’ fate soon enough. If, as I expect, the tribunal finds heavily against Rangers, the inquest and recriminations shall begin. It is unlikely that much blame will find its way to the right places. Already the media pack are working hard to narrow down the options for remedy: the only game in town appears to be that a newco-Rangers must be allowed immediate and free entry to the Scottish Premier League. Scotland’s football journalists will brook no discussion about anything that threatens their gravy-train.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

About rangerstaxcaseI have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

3,349 Responses to Rangers Face Their Fate

RTC has spoken for the bona fides of the target of your comment, so we must take him at face value. Not all of us are won over by his postings (he appears to be a Fulham supporter but a Rangers shareholder) but he is entitled to make his comments without fear or favour.
********************
Is this me? Because I went to a Fulham-Charlton game? I actually attend quite a lot of football in England for corporate entertaining especially as we have quite a number of football people investing in our little company (I love prawn sandwiches – don’t have them in Corsica, you know?) – this season alone I have ticked off about a dozen grounds. I am also actually a shareholder in Celtic. You know why I was buying RFC shares.

forget clyde guys, go listen to tonights real radio. DJ says “dm ran the club into the ground” Roughy says “murray identified a guy in the business of liquidating businesses…in the business of assett stripping and thats what he’s doing to rangers…he has been put in there by dm to liquidate the club”

Really surprised in the change in DJ’s tone about rangers from when he was at clyde? Editorial choice? Doubtful. Free of DM influence is my guess as he has not spared him lately.

Its strange but RR is a much lighter programme but seem better informed and more able to deal with the basic facts than ssb. As people have said you can feel the atmosphere when terry gets on, and fair play that they continue to let him on as they seem terrified!

RTC make sure you keep it on the down low, im sure that the hack that outs you will win journo of the year!

I have no idea why you were buying Rangers shares, your reasons seemed nonsensical to me but perhaps it was your head of legal affairs or PA who gave your reasons and you have been misquoted. Some of us on here realise we can’t reach your exhaulted position in society with exclusive access to the movers and shakers and off blog chats with RTC, nor do we run billion pound property empires and are grateful to you for your wisdom and insights.

Isn’t it typical that (let us call him) a journalist would appear to be more interested in the person who is doing the job that said journalist should be doing, instead of focusing on the task at hand, namely, the biggest story to hit Scottish football?

What does it say about me when I still expect the MSM to focus on the real story? Too much Laphroaig Quarter Cask perhaps?

———————————
so why zero interest in him ? not even an enquiry to test the water
_____________________________________________________________

MrGregor and Davis have established a certain kind of fotballing reputation over the last three years or so which makes them ( as free agents ) a desirable commodity. Jelavic is a lesser known and much hyped player on the back of one title winning season in the SPL.The agents of each respective player know best how to handle the situation.

Tried to make a comment today 1.39pm but still showing as awaiting moderation but just noticed I had a capital K at the start of my email address so suspect that won’t have helped. Post wasn’t anything ground breaking just an intro from me and a well done on the good work.

gunnerb says:
27/01/2012 at 12:33 am
timtim says:
26/01/2012 at 11:02 pm
Adam says:
26/01/2012 at 10:57 pm
EPL clubs would snap up McGregor IMHO.
———————————
so why zero interest in him ? not even an enquiry to test the
water
_____________________________________________________________
MrGregor has established a certain kind of reputation over the last three years or so which makes him a derisable commodity

I have no idea why you were buying Rangers shares, your reasons seemed nonsensical to me but perhaps it was your head of legal affairs or PA who gave your reasons and you have been misquoted. Some of us on here realise we can’t reach your exhaulted position in society with exclusive access to the movers and shakers and off blog chats with RTC, nor do we run billion pound property empires and are grateful to you for your wisdom and insights.

I had typed up a rather lenghty response then I thought you don’t deserve it. But l will say this, my Head of Legal and my PA have taken enough abuse from you and one or two others so you can leave them out of this.

mooby says:
27/01/2012 at 12:20 am
—————————
I think big Roughie may well be correct .
and Ellis could have been the lynchpin that brought them together
Whytes smoke and mirrors act is straight from the Minty conjuring kit
The media lickspittles that ushered him in on a billion moonbeams
( surprised NASA’ s radar didnt pick that one up) are still wiping the succulent off their chops
If the real floating charge holder is Murray then he has taken an all in gamble outwith legal boundaries to save his neck knighthood and wealth .
Is Murray a desperate gambler ? Is CW a fraud ?
if it walks like a duck ……….

Question? Talksport tonight was commenting on the Portsmouth situation and where saying that a winding up order is in place because of unpaid Tax,paye,NIC for the period of Nov/Dec 2011,
The talk on this blog is that under MBB there has no Tax,PAYE,NIC been paid so why is HMRC not banging on Mordor’s gates ??

I take it that means no you wont show it to us. Or if I was being snide I could say you never had it in the first place.
**************************
For the last time, I have answered this particular question – suggest you troll (sorry, trawl) through the blog to find said answer.

Of course, I’m making it all up. Isn’t it obvious that I’m a double agent for Jack Irvine, sitting in a single end in Dennistoun in my simmet and shorts typing away on a ZX Spectrum? But, you be snide if you want, just don’t expect me to be polite in return.

Actually, in the interests of accuracy, it was a letter from Companies House that Corsica received, not Plus SX. Further, Corsica did say that he had explained at least twice why he couldn’t reproduce this but I missed his explanations each time.

Corsica, as to those qualities you attribute to me, I regret I have none of those. I, too, composed a lengthy reply but will curtail it in the interests of parity. Goodnight to you too, sir!!!

joemack says:
27/01/2012 at 1:11 am
Lord Wobbly says:
27/01/2012 at 12:44 am
MrGregor has established a certain kind of reputation over the last three years or so which makes him a derisable commodity.
McGregor has a real problem in dealing with long ranged shots, especially directly at him.
That, along with the inability to command the six yard box, leaves opposition coaches areas to target.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That……and the fact that he is apparently too small for the EPL. Not sure I agree with that. Shirley it’s not so much his size that matters, but how he uses it?

joemack says:
27/01/2012 at 1:27 am
Lord Wobbly says:
27/01/2012 at 1:17 am
That……and the fact that he is apparently too small for the EPL. Not sure I agree with that. Shirley it’s not so much his size that
matters, but how he uses it?
Yes, the overuse leading to the eysight problem that causes his
inability to deal with long ranged shots.
I’ts not an old wives tale about you going blind you know :0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If only I was able to read your comment

corsica says:
27/01/2012 at 1:03 am
I must have missed it also, how hard can it be for you to repost your explanation?

I don’t have any idea where you live in Corsica, you have been quiet adept at keeping that from us, as I would in your position. Single ends in Denniston are very sought after now, you maybe don’t know this as it’s been a while since you were last in our dear green city.

joemack says:
27/01/2012 at 1:27 am
Lord Wobbly says:
27/01/2012 at 1:17 am
That……and the fact that he is apparently too small for the EPL. Not sure I agree with that. Shirley it’s not so much his size that
matters, but how he uses it?
Yes, the overuse leading to the eysight problem that causes his
inability to deal with long ranged shots.
I’ts not an old wives tale about you going blind you know :0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If only I was able to read your comment

What is it that we are missing from this whole Craig Whyte owing RFC? We presume he has no money in september then up pops Close Brothers to bail him out. He wont last till Xmas and he does, their will be a fire sale in january, there hasn’t been and it looks as if he’s not going to sell jellylegs unless it’s for way over market value. WTF is going on? He may just be smarter than your average bear. I am beginning to think we could all end up with a big egg splattered on our faces.

I was thinking about the confidentiality clauses in the employment termination contracts of ex-employees of Rangers FC plc. If this company ceases to exist, would there be anyone with a legal right to still enforce them. Could lead to an opening of a kind of Pandora’s Box of “kick and tell” books/articles.

I know I stand a good chance of getting shot down in flames here but I am going to stick up a bit for Darrel King and his performance on SSB.

My understanding of what he said is that it is not unusual for footballers to have at least two contracts with one of them being, for example, for media rights. (So far OK)

I do think, in response to Terry’s question, he was relying, perhaps wrongly, on Stewart Reagan’s response to say that these were solely the concern of the SPL.

He then moved on to a slightly different topic which was the ‘contracts’ he had knowledge of, which were insisted upon by agents covering payments made to EBTs and which are central to HMRCs case.

On this point, I think he was very forthright in confirming their existence and confirming that they stipulated that ‘loans’ would not have to be repaid.

His comments about the blog were, to my mind, not that significant.

He denied that Dave King was his informant but perhaps he was only trying to protect his source and himself from any comeback.

He denied that his paper had chosen to delay publication but did, significantly, add that publication was delayed because his source inside Ibrox would not confirm some details until after the league was won. (possible)

He did talk about RTCs annonymity and displayed some frustration about that. While I would never in a million years suggest that RTC should ever do anything to threaten his/her annonymity, for reasons that will become clear. I can to some extent understand Darryl King’s frustration.

Sports writers in Scotland are probably under more scrutiny than anywhere else in the world and can find every utterance analysed for any sign of bias.

Where stories concern Rangers and Celtic, this goes into overdrive with fans on each side taking the words of sports writers and deciding that those same words are an attack on them and supportive of their enemies.

For example, I have very recently taken to looking in on FF and have discovered that SSB is vilified as being pro Celtic to exactly the same extent as it is vilified as being pro Rangers on here.

Sports writers also have to suffer an incredible amount of personal abuse for writing too much, not writing enough, covering a story or not covering a story.

On FF nearly all journalists are accused of being ‘taigs’ and part of a Timmy conspiracy. On here the opposite view is taken.

If they say anything controversial they stand a better than even chance of sustained abuse and physical danger.

Take for example Graham Spiers, one-time darling of the Rangers’ fans. He dared to write about sectarian singing at Ibrox and, for years since, has been the subject of targeted abuse and threats.

Even by association journalists are branded, I know of one (non-sports) who has recently been the subject of threats after it was ‘revealed’ that he knows Phil McG.

Given these pressures, it may not be surprising that sometimes journalists might get frustrated when they are quoted the works of annonymous bloggers, but I would read it as just that, frustration with maybe a hint of jealousy that they cannot always say what they really think.

I wouldn’t read it as any sinister attempt to unmask people with the intention of doing them harm.

I have posted on here before that there are journalists who are good, bad, lazy, biased and useless – all qualities that can be found on here and in any profession you care to name.

In the main, they are not murderers, child molesters, armed robbers or any other type of monster you would like to name but just people who are trying to report what they see, hear or think.

They may often get it wrong or may say things you disagree with but, judging by the amount of time spent discussing their work on here and on other fora, they certainly keep us talking.

John said
“For example, I have very recently taken to looking in on FF and have discovered that SSB is vilified as being pro Celtic to exactly the same extent as it is vilified as being pro Rangers on here.

Sports writers also have to suffer an incredible amount of personal abuse for writing too much, not writing enough, covering a story or not covering a story.

On FF nearly all journalists are accused of being ‘taigs’ and part of a Timmy conspiracy. On here the opposite view is taken. ”

Whilst you have every right to defend Darryl and his stance on the radio, I take exception to your above comments comparing this blog to FF and any ” vilification ” or “Taig calling” of journalists – calling them lazy, inaccurate , biased -yes but stooping to the levels of FF and Vanguard Bears and Jack Irvine by naming and outing innocent people ??
All honest opinions have been welcome here from what I can see and little time afforded to Trolls and sectarianism . Leg-pulling yes but Leggat style no way!
I think RTC´s blog and it´s major contributor´s have shown MSM up for their incompetences and lack of effort to dig out the truth ,it has also shown other forums how it can be done in a civilised manner!

If it were possible for Rangers to claim that the outstanding portion of players’ contracts should be included when seeking to establish the extent of the club’s liabilities, then surely there should be some allowance for player values on the assets side? How would this impact?

I understand that asset values might be impaired by the restrictions on movement to the transfer windows, but not all football clubs are covered by these restrictions (best case in point being non EU territories such as Ukraine and Russia the latter being more significant given reported interest in Jelavic from CSKA Moscow). Also, can timelines not be manipulated by whoever is in charge of the process to ensure that they include one of the the transfer windows. For example, if the proverbial was to hit the fan by end of March, that would leave only three months before the EU transfer window opened. Creditors might be willing to wait rather than let assets walk away for free.

First off, before I get any criticism about coming on this and “having a go”, I’d like to start by saying I am a great fan of this blog, and think it speaks more sense than all the hacks out there put together. I enjoy reading this blog as RTC provides good (accurate) info, in my honest opinion.

I get why Celtic fans love whats going on at RFC, and when it was the other way about (in 1994) I know Rangers fans gloated. I know you all want to see RFC disappear, or re-start from Div3 and work up. I get all that, and love the rivalry of the OF.

However, Celtic need Rangers, just as much as Rangers need Celtic. Both clubs need to be in the SPL fighting for the title, for purely economics as well as rivalry. If RFC disappear:

1. Do you honestly think Sky (or any broadcaster) will invest millions in Scottish football when Celtic are certs to win the league before a ball is kicked?

2. Do you think Celtic will attract “big” names if there is no rivalry (lets be honest, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and the rest wont catch Celtic)?

3. Ambitious players move to “bigger” clubs to improve as well as for the money…Why would any player want to come to Celtic if they cant improve as a player – you’d end up watching players who are coming to the end of their careers and want to win some silverware before they retire (and yes I know Davie Weir came to us).

Point is guys, we need each other, and the demise of one will eventually cause the demise of the other.

RFCsupporterinpeace says:
27/01/2012 at 5:43 am
Do you think ragers should start at Div 3 if found guilty ?
I am not surprised that most ,if not all ragers fans believe Scottish football would not survive without ragers .IMO they are so used to Scottish football bending over backwards to ensure they stay on top .
I believe Scottish football will be finished (for many people )if ragers are given preferential treatment regards this situation .
I would be happy to see our players coming through lennoxtown and into the first team ,if foreign players do not want to come too bad .
Again your opinion relies mainly on money ,do you not realise that throwing money at a problem is why your club is where it is .
I want the rules applied and I am happy to take our chances without ragers for the couple of years it may take for them to get back to the spl

As has been said by many excellent posters on here, Scottish football finds itself between a rock and a hard place. If Rangers are liquidated and a Newco does have to start in Div 3 then there will be obvious financial implications for the SPL. On the other hand, if any Newco is allowed straight into the SPL then the sporting integrity of our game is destroyed and destroyed forever.

What Scottish football needs to do is realise that we might very well soon face a choice between money and integrity. This is not a business dilemma we have to deal with; it is a moral one. Everything else that has been discussed on this wondeful blog and elsewhere is a side issue to this central point. If Rangers retain their current status and their history, the club in its current guise must be severly punished – even to the extent of being stripped of their tarnished honours and demoted to the lower leagues. After all, they did cheat and did it for years – a fact that the MSM seem very keen to ignore but the single most important fact in this whole sordid affair. If they are liquidated and a newco formed, they must not be given preferential treatment under any circumstances. This is Scottish football’s Rubicon; either we forswear the money and protect our integrity or we sell out our beloved game for ever.

You are contending that RFC , in whichever guise, gets into the SPL without a penalty.

that will have the following consequences

⦿ endorses and rewards cheating on your taxes

⦿ endorses and rewards lying to the football authorities

⦿ endorses and rewards financial recklessness

⦿ allows Rangers to clean house for free, by not paying suppliers, and cutting free players it no longer fancies without compensation. whilst other clubs have to pay their bills and honor their contracts

given all of the above, what would you suggest as appropriate punishment for Rangers and a warning to other clubs that you can’t do the same

RFCsupporterinpeace says:
27/01/2012 at 5:43 am
————————————-
We have long been warned that when RFC followers take their head out of the sand then the argument would be “you can’t do without us”. This blog and I want justice and should that be no more Ragers then to answer your points

1 I’m far from convinced you are correct about the SPL being a foregone conclusion without Ragers and your point in 2 about catch up is probably incorrect.

2 If you are correct in 1 and I am wrong, Celtic will be in the Champions League every year. Celtic haven’t bought a really big name since MON left but have recently concentrated on developing in house or bringing in youngsters with potential who may stay for several seasons (as Larson did) or having impressed (particularly in the shop window of CL) then are sold on at a profit to the club and to the delight of the player if they want to play in a bigger league.

3As per my answer to 2. Kayal, Izaguirre, Ledley, Commons, Ki, Mathews, Wanyama etc. have come to Celtic from lower leagues. All almost certainly harbour the ambition to play in the EPL, Spain or Italy. If/when they go Celtic will have had good service from them and will almost certainly command a transfer fee over the one Celtic paid.

Busy weekend ahead for the Whyte Knight and his team. Doubt very much if he will have time to turn up at Ibrox tomorrow as he and Grant Thornton finalise and sign off on the accounts before, or at the latest, by the 31st January(2012?) as promised by the MBB a few weeks ago.

Everyone, this is not a post suggesting that rangers should be given an easy ride in their journey

I’ve not concentrated on here on too much of the debate about how Celtic would be fine without rangers. However I know a fair few other celtic fans that agree with you also.

I am loving the fact that the credibility and recognition of this blog is ever increasing and has completely dispelled the ‘99% crap’ myth.

Playing devils advocate, if someone started an equally well written blog today suggesting Celtic need rangers then I have no doubt in my mind that despite the initial rubbishing of the idea, a year or so down the line there would be a significant upturn in the ‘you were correct all along’ feeling.

The sky contract and the inherent value of both Celtic and rangers extrapolated across every commercial contract Celtic enter into would significantly dent celtics, granted limited ability, to attract the same interest and appeal.

Just my opinion and I know there are many on here that fundamentally disagree with me but In my head there is little anyone could say to convince me otherwise!

Just picking up one point in particular – a side letter saying to players they won’t need to pay nic or income tax is not in itself damning – as long as the correct income tax and nic is paid by the employer (in this case on a grossed up basis).

However, as soon as their is a contractual link between the players contract, the money rangers ‘donate’ to the EBT and the ‘totally unconnected’ non recourse loans from the EBT to the players then rangers case fails on basic principles based on the facts of the case.

There is essentially two different attacks hmrc have in the case. First of all rangers did not apply the planning as instructed (second contracts would support this line of argument if not confirm it) ergo whether the planning works or not rangers should still have been applying paye and nic. The second (and this is the only ‘precedent’ potential for the case for hmrc) is that the planning simply does not work regardless of how precise the advice had been followed.

In this case, I would suggest that the rangers players arrangements will likely fall into the first category. Rtc has already alluded that the planning is more suitable to someone like David Murray who would not need to rely on contracts to be confident that the transactions would happen as intended. Players on the other hand and their agents would surely require comfort that the sizeable portion of the wages that they have agreed they are not contractually entitled to will be forthcoming nonetheless.

Just listening to SSB from last night. Who was the caller who is trying to suggest Mark Guidi is our troll poster Mark McGhee?

from RTCs comments, mark mcghee was asking a very specific question relating to a very technical aspect of accounting which has cropped up in the EBT BTC.

Mark Guidi is a clueless hack

just because HK is a fud who doesn’t know what day of the week it is and makes a mistake in calling mark guidi, mark mcghee doesn’t make guidi a guy with any knowledge of the subject matter he’s been ignoring for well over a year.

the caller/poster sounded like a paranoid maniac with his rant towards keevins – and when keevins says “i don’t do the internet” it doesn’t surprise me, i bet he isn’t allowed sharp knives or scissors either.

====================

There are examples of ‘less well informed posters/ lurkers’ reproducing (plagiarising) points from this blog, which have been made by bigger brains, which have been posted on other sites/ blogs. This has also happened with callers to SSB. I have seen and heard some of these for myself. I mean no disrespect to anyone who falls into the ‘less well informed’ bracket as I can be considered one myself. However, it appears to me that whilst the ammunition used in the initial onslaught is sound, the callers lack the debating agility to contend with any follow up argument which ensues, sometimes making the caller/ poster look a tad silly.
I think that the gleaning of information on here, being used by another less well equipped person, can reflect badly on this blog? I question the wisdom as to why folk would do this (I have my own ideas) but wonder what others on here (including RTC) think?

A lease might not transfer ownership to the leasee but the leasee has to record the leased items as an asset if it intends to use it for major portion of its useful life or where the present value of lease payment is fairly equal to the fair value of the asset, etc. Although legally the leasee is not the owner, so the leased item is not his asset, but from the perspective of the underlying economics the leasee is entitled to the benefits embedded in the use of the item and hence it has to be recorded as an asset. A company is short of cash, so it sells its machinery to the bank and obtains it back on a lease. It is called sale and leaseback.
*************************
I’m sorry I am not sure I follow you here but let me try to clarify what I can:

A lease does “transfer ownership”, to use your phrase. Exactly what level or extent of ownership will be determined by the lease itself. Generally, you can do what you want with the property (within reason) provided you return it in good nick or as the lease stipulates upon expiry of the lease.

Sale and leaseback – at least within the property world – just means that you sell a property you own and then agree to lease it back from the new owner (usually) at a pre-determined rate and for a pre-determined period of time. It quite often comes with contractual maintenance obligations which is where the new owner makes a shed load of money. To give an example, the UK government sold off lots of job centres and social security buildings to Land Securities Trillium and then leased them back but also agreed to pay LST for the maintenance and upkeep of said properties.

Here I stray from my area of expertise, but if I sell a piece of machinery to the bank and lease it back because I am short of cash then that piece of machinery is not owned by me anymore, it is owned by the bank. I am just renting it from them for the length of its usable life. At the end of that period, the bank owns the asset not me.

Agreed Corsica, however for balance sheet and accountancy purposes CW could do this and still show assett on the books and whjo would be the wiser.

Only a recerver would notice that suddenly Ibrox 7 Murray park are now under Close Ltd Ownership !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!